beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 12,819,200 won and its related thereto against the defendant shall be annually from September 27, 2019 to November 27, 2020.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4:
The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract that includes self-owned vehicle damage security agreement with respect to the DNAS BH380 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) owned by C, and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to EM 3.5 tons truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 17:45 on February 7, 2019, F driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and went to the entrance side of the back road while driving ahead of the HH Motor Vehicle Industrial Complex located in Y in Hasan-si, G. On the other hand, F conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle driving ahead of the end of the end of the back road on the side side where there is no central line above the end line.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
On February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 15,013,190 on February 15, 2019, and KRW 10,796,810 on February 26, 2019 to the insured C, respectively.
(The deduction of 500,000 won shall not be confirmed).
Meanwhile, as C disposes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without repairing it on February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff sold the remainder after scrapping on February 21, 2019 and recovered KRW 976,000.
2. Existence and scope of liability for indemnity; and
A. According to the fact of recognition of the existence of the liability for indemnity, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above repair cost incurred by the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle due to the instant accident. Since the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was exempted from the obligation to pay the said damages by subrogation, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, was paid to the Plaintiff in accordance with